Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Question about DV cameras

profile picture
auski
Posts: 730 - Karma: 1,033
Every person I've spoken to has said that effective pixels are one of the important considerations when choosing a video camera. More = better picture quality. What I've found is that most cameras that take 1 or 2mp digital stills have a higher number of effective pixels than those that don't, cameras which seem identical otherwise. That is giving me the impression that the 'effective pixels' doesn't entirely refer to the VIDEO quality, which is all I care about.

I'm in Australia and the two models I'm looking at are Sonys. One has 400,000 effective pixels and the other has 690,000 effective pixels (but it takes 1mp stills which I really don't care about). Which of the below cameras would give better VIDEO quality (I hope they are the same then I can get the cheaper one).

It's the DCRTRV22 V the DCRTRV33. Those cameras seem pretty much the same otherwise.

Thanks in advance, hope that all made sense.
Sep 8 2003 3:06PM
0 0
profile picture
kuoppis
Posts: 1651 - Karma: 30
get a 3ccd minidv camera if you want superior video quality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Play it hard.
Sep 8 2003 3:47PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
Yeah, try looking for a used VX1000 or GL1, you won't regret it.
Sep 8 2003 4:23PM
0 0
profile picture
auski
Posts: 730 - Karma: 1,033
Unfortunately I don't have that sort of cash. It's between those two models there (I don't know if the same models are in the US).
Sep 8 2003 4:35PM
0 0
profile picture
What_A_Wookie
Posts: 3231 - Karma: 21
can you buy used or look at a Gl-2
__________________________________________

NS Special Education

Long is the way. And hard, that out of hell leadsup to light.
Sep 8 2003 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
johnwiechecki
Posts: 1153 - Karma: 344
All right, I looked at the Sony USA site and first off obviously the 33 is more expensive ($100). But it is definately worth it. The effective video pixels on the 33 are 690,000 while the effective pixels on the 22 are 340,000. An extra 100 bucks give you quality twice as good.
I don't know if you don't like other companies, but don't limit yourself just to Sony. I just bought a Canon Optura 20 (690,000 pixels also) for just $605 at BuyDig.com. I already had a problem with it (a connection failed, so they had to soder it back together), but I sent it in on a Tuesday and got it back exactly a week later. Good luck man, and check out the internet for good deals, don't just buy it from Sony directly.
My only other advice is do NOT buy from INS digital. I ordered my Canon from there first and it never came...I called and they said it was the European version and might not ever come in. They post low prices for products you will never get. Later, hope that helped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
Sep 10 2003 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
auski
Posts: 730 - Karma: 1,033
Thanks dude, it did.

Yeah I have also been checking out the Canon's, Panasonics and JVCs. The main other option was the Canon MVX150i (850,000 effective pixels) but I read some less-than-good reviews and the Sonys have had no problems that I can find. Oh and don't worry, there's no way I'll be paying retail.
Sep 10 2003 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
kuoppis
Posts: 1651 - Karma: 30
that canon kicks some serious ass
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Play it hard.
Sep 10 2003 7:00PM
0 0
profile picture
johnwiechecki
Posts: 1153 - Karma: 344
Yeah, that's the Australian version of what I have, but it has a few hundred thousand more effective pixels...I got shafted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
Sep 11 2003 3:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Freeskifro
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 10
used an XL-1 today. awesome awesome awesome.


Fritz

'Try everything once, except incest and folk dancing'- Sir Thomas Beecham

'What fun is it being cool if you can't wear a sombrero?' - Hobbes

'When you smoke herb it reveals you to yourself.'
Bob Marley

*-FRITZ-*
Sep 11 2003 3:09AM
0 0
profile picture
johnwiechecki
Posts: 1153 - Karma: 344
Crap, I just realized something...if the Canon you are looking at is the same kind as mine, but has a different effective pixel value, make sure to check out the two Sony AUSTRALIAN versions to make sure those numbers didn't change as well. Sorry man, I only looked at the U.S. versions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
Sep 11 2003 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
mammothpunks
Posts: 5724 - Karma: 372
that camera is PAL not ntsc thats why there are more pixals. PAL format has a slower framrate with higher quality frames while ntsc has a faster framrate and slightly less qualty frames.

'I should put my camera on a tripod - its easier to drink beer that way' - dirty steve
NS royal gangstar
Sep 11 2003 5:30PM
0 0
profile picture
kuoppis
Posts: 1651 - Karma: 30
pal dv = 720x576 25fps
ntsc dv = 720x480 29.9fps
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Play it hard.
Sep 11 2003 5:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886
you definitely don't want to get that australian one...a PAL camera won't do you very much good

- Patrickยทpatproductions.com
Looks like rain to me.
Sep 12 2003 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
johnwiechecki
Posts: 1153 - Karma: 344
Why's that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fanatics, Teem Bosquet, East Coast Alliance
Sep 13 2003 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
auski
Posts: 730 - Karma: 1,033
I am Australian (luckily PAL is better than NTSC as well)
Sep 13 2003 4:59AM
0 0
profile picture
kuoppis
Posts: 1651 - Karma: 30
pal is better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Play it hard.
Sep 13 2003 10:13AM
0 0
profile picture
auski
Posts: 730 - Karma: 1,033
Yeh that's what I said, only because it was invented later (because the Americans got TV early so they got the early standard and it's been too expensive and difficult to ever bother changing).
Sep 13 2003 2:05PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)